Re: Math as Religion

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
I am willing to be flexible with notation and I don't believe that
there is a singular way. Above in this thread I have criticized your
underscore notation as lacking generality and I would suggest on that
issue if you want to take it up to take it up there:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/db97b7686861d8c0

Your refutation of the polysign construction as relying on the reals is
exactly what this thread is trying to address. I am looking squarely at
this from one side and you from the other.
So this is fine. This is the debate that I wish to have. And so this
debate leads to the question of whether a fine mathematician such as
yourself is capable of breaking such a rule in the interest of
improving mathematics. Hindsight tells me that breaking this rule is
not a conflict ad so this rule is no law. It is merely a tradition
which has cost mathematics the deficit of the polysign numbers.

Your ability to go here is the difference between scientific
mathematics and religious mathematics. Currently you are practicing
religious mathematics. Breaking rules is a lot of fun; especially false
rules, for these shroud the truth and should be broken. It is a
scientific mathematicians duty to tread here.

Which rule do you want to break?

--
David Marcus
.

Quantcast